User talk:Heah/archive3

Mr. Mystery

I've just uploaded the book cover about Mr. Mystery. Thus, I can already prove evidence that it does exist. Check out the article for more details. If there's anything wrong, pls. reply on my talk page. --Bruin rrss23 05:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The previous Mr. Mystery article that got deleted was stubbed.

Delete

I know that you has to delete because it contained text from a pdf. Please could you leave a note on my talk page next time you want to delete something from me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by eddieh (talk • contribs) .

Aya-*.jpg

Those are wonderful photographs. Thank you for contributing them.

What was the experience like? Do you have a journal or blog entry about it? How did you arrange to be involved with the cooking? Do you have any photos of the finished tea? — Clarknova 04:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikibooks:THINKSTARSHIP/Psychonautics

Hi there, I am pleased to hear of your new promotion.

I was having a major argument with myself over how to go about doing something, and so far, You are the person I've gotten to know and like around, So I thought I would ask your opinion on it.

The general idea has become (Since I didn't get a Wikicity, which would have made this enormously easier) To write a book whose title would be "How to generate an Doctorate level Interdisciplinary program on WikiBooks". This is actually something of a digression from what I really wanted to do do to get a lot of people in the area. I figured i'd start the WikiCity just post some StarShips, and I'd have people showing up to oooh and ahhh over the art. I can't go that route on Wikibooks for obvious reasons.

Instead, i'm forced to get things to the point of having sufficient content to attract more people. This is the main issue. I just got done counting my Subdepartments. Theres 345 of them. I'm not going to be able to single handedly do more than create them all as pages with links, references, Socratic Method, and Table of Contents. In other words, I'll end up with 345 pages each of Which is full of red links to doors for somebody else to open.

My (first) question is, should i just work on only the Main Departments? Is there a process one would go through to get help with simple basic but annoyingly boring and time consuming tasks like searching Wikipedia for its relevant articles? I'm sepnding most of my time nowadays just running the search engine for 5 minutes to find one link. If I could somehow talk 10 Wikifolks into helping me, it would really make a difference. There are a variety of related questions. I have considered folding my subdepartments back into the main departmens- merging. The problem with this is the whole point of the whole thing is to create the meta structure that shows how it would be done, and taking out the sub-departments both removes what would become an important feature, but invites chaos when somebody adds details. (Sort of the worst problem i normally encounter with Wikipedia. Navigating between articles and concepts.)

I'm trying to visualize a realistic growth process considering that this isn't a Wikicity. The more i look at it, the more depressing it becomes. Maybe you have some ideas on how to increase the rate of that process. I went and asked for a bot, for instance. Not anything for a reply. You'd think by now that they would have worked out a way for a bot to populate a new child network with the links that are relative to say for instance, a set of keywords. I have also been working a bit on yahoo groups, but honestly, I don't feel comfortable drawing people in yet from outside the organization, there isn't enough done yet. Should I just give up alltogether on filling out the references and leave that to some future wave of Wikipedians? The idea there was to avoid mirroring or redundancy by linking to whats allready been done. (as well as build the knowledge base as quickly aspossible to move on into the level of expert.)

Another part of me is just sort of screaming out; "Just go do the Psychonautics book!" This makes some sense because it would function as a template for what a finished THINKSTARSHIP first edition Departmental Text would look like. It also seems like a bad idea because it might feel like something of a bait and switch to some people. (I'm particularly concerned with other WikiBookians. The way people get welcomed in on these things could use some work. Posting a big fat graphic telling me I'm not up to snuff doesn't seem sensible or fair considering i just started, and the ketch 22 is, I tried to keep the book cloaked, but somebody wasn't down with that, and put up a big fat graphic asking me to place the book. I imagine with 101 people that are flybys for every 1 that is on it, they have their stress 2, and I suppose thus it all comes down to prooving myself.) I'm sure any author feels overwhelmed when they look at a table of contents, but this is another order of magnitude of overwhelmed; I wouldn't be able to finish this alone in my lifetime.

Anyways, thanks for your thoughts, time, and energy, Sincerely Prometheuspan Prometheuspan 02:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Heah does a lot to share knowledge with others who want to learn, through his inumerous contributions

Knowledge as it should always be- Free!

Congratulations

Steiger 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Heah,

Mr Heah does a lot to share knowledge with others who want to learn, through his inumerous contributions

Knowledge as it should always be- Free!

Congratulations

Steiger 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I have added some questions to your RFA. If you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you took a look at them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one last questiony thing, 4a. JoshuaZ 04:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I don't know if you've noticed but someone else has added another question. JoshuaZ 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, thanks for welcoming me and notifying me that I'd spelt my web address wrong (oops).

Could you weigh in on the infobox at Cannabis (drug)

I say it is inapropriate and inaccurate, Rory069 insists it should be there, and reverts my attempts to remove it. Discussion is here. Could you please weigh in. -SM 11:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Congratulations! Consensus having been reached, it is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review the Administrators' reading list and the Administrators' how-to guide before using any of your shiny new buttons. :-) If you need assistance or advice, please feel free to request help from other administrators at the Administrator's Noticeboard and Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents, or to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congraulations on your new mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserved. it. (^'-')^ Covington 07:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I have no doubt that you will make a very good admin. Cheers TigerShark 12:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this and good luck for the future! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 16:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Remember to affix your anti-troll armor and de-fanaticization helmet. You're gonna need 'em. —thames 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Same Sex Marriage

Your use of the rollback against another administrator was grossly inappropriate. I recognize that this is your first day on the job, as it were, but that's little excuse given the very public debates over this matter. TfD is not and has never been the proper location for a speedy candidate any more than AfD (and VfD before it) were the proper locations for article speedy candidates. Please consider your actions more carefully in the future. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: at Mackensen's talk page --He:ah? 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I've no problem with it being listed at WP:DRV, if someone really wants to. To me, it was an obvious case of T1, especially given the opposite version (which was speedied at the same time). Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Copyvios

That log is actually automatically generated by a bot. It lists the by day pages so that someone can easily look at the history of any one of them should they need to see what happened to a particular page. The log is there so that we can remove those pages from the main page and keep it from getting cluttered/loading slowly. So yes, you're correct, just remove the entry when you're done :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington hwys cat

I suppose SPUI's changing the page into a redirect isn't allowed either? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely redundant, as I have explained. Everything that had been it is a state highway - a highway maintained by the state. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, in the absence of any decision on this matter, and in light of the fact that (at least two) people are clearly not agreeing on what should be done, i really don't think that revert warring and nominating things for speedy deletion is the correct way to be dealing with this . . .

As for my own take on what the category scheme should be, as SPUI seems to want to talk about that rather than how to resolve this dispute . . . while interstates etc may be maintained by the state, if we are going to be consistent in our use of terms on wikipedia-

In the United States, a state highway, state route, or state road (depending on the state) is a highway which is part of a state-wide numbering scheme. In this they are distinct from United States Numbered Highways and Interstate Highways, however these three categories of highways are all owned and constructed by the state in which they are located. State highways which are part of the National Highway System receive substantial federal financing while the remainder are primarily financed by the individual states. State Highway#United States

So they don't seem simply redundant; as interstates and US highways are not state highways according to the wikipedia article on state highways, SPUI's argument seems based on a mistaken premise. And i'm not sure why SPUI objects to having an umbrella cat (washington highways) containing state routes, interstates, and US highways. As it stands, Category:Washington state highways contains all of the state routes, (which also suggests that this is what this category is for); why should the umbrella cat also be the place for state routes? That doesn't seem to make sense, as presumably state routes are a distinct thing deserving of their own category.

With all that said, why is this not being worked out at the talk page of WikiProject Washington State Highways? It would seem the proper place to come to such decisions . . .

so that's my two cents. --He:ah? 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that part of the state highway article is incorrect - I need to fix it. In Washington, and in many states, a state highway is simply a state-maintained road. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 06:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It basicly is the article, SPUI . . . Didn't you write a lot of it? It does say that many states use this term differently. But what you've got in Washington is three different sets of highways that all deserve their own category, with an umbrella on top to keep of the rain . . . --He:ah? 08:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They all have their own category - it's just that the state highway category also applies to the other two, so they go underneath it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 09:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Cougar

I've been trying to contact the people about the Eastern Cougar article, but it's been a real problem, considering that (a) my email address has been really wierd lately and (b) they haven't responded to my messages. I'm doing my best, though.--ÑøζζłεΜαńFile:Homsar small.png 16:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't sleep, clown will eat me RFA 33⅓

Thank you for your early support during my third RFA. The self-nomination was successful, with an unexpected number of participants from all over. If you ever need anything, are feeling snackish, or would just like to chat, please feel free to visit me on my talk page; I never sleep (much). 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Psycho

Thanks for giving us a day's breathing space on this user...problems with him have lasted weeks now and no one is jumping into to stop him. Discouraging.

Just a note on this though, we're pretty sure this is someone who does this as a sockpuppet and if nameblocked will likely return as a different user in short order. I don't know if you have the ability to watch for his IP address, but I thought I'd give you a headsup anyway. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Like I was saying (by AncorZonr), and now I've got attacks on my own talk page here (by Easteregg) --Kickstart70-T-C 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another one here (Boatfarm), who AncrZonr claims is a sockpuppet of me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (12th nomination) --Kickstart70-T-C 23:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he just added a previously deleted redirect from Jewsdidwtc, and sounds like he's probably the IP address here --Kickstart70-T-C 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he's back as a different sockpuppet [1] --Kickstart70-T-C 00:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could use a second opinion on this, which I believe to be the same user. I remove the link to avoid giving the site bonus search engine ranking, without really altering the comment's text or quality. This user didn't appreciate. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he's apparently going back to re-add a bunch of things that were removed after his previous edits prior to his block (see the photo added to Bukakke) --Kickstart70-T-C 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Π

Remove Page Protection on Bernie Sanders

What you've done is block me from restoring information added to the page, which was then vandalized by Bkwillwm, with no discussion! Remove this block now. If not, remove all my contributions going all the way back to when I first made them. I'd rather have that than have them twisted. Straightinfo 04:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no violation of the three revert rule, as Bkwillwm well knows, reversion of vandalism does not count toward 3RR, explicitly. I have addressed his complaint, several times. I found his complaint to be without merit, as he seems to feel that POV rule says that no comment which contains both sides of a dispute, when it relates to George Bush, is acceptible. This is not a violation of the POV rule, it is POV. Since ,User:Heah, you admit that you have not looked into this, a semi-protect that blocks me, but not Bkwillwm, is an abuse of admin power, and will be reported unless immediately removed. Straightinfo 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:P

Well, usually I don't interfere on enWiki but I've just seen a so interesting remark put by you on Space Cadet's talk page... :] Please, don't say your patience is waning in this way - Space Cadet is a Wikimedian far longer than you are. ^^

I'd like to ask you to consider this point: politeness is important but not as much as the truth on Wiki. I know "fighters" are quite tiring - but pretty many of them is simply right. And to say which ones you really have to put your effort - but it's really worth of it in the world of biased, anglo-centric and spoiled by unfair edit wars and groups of interest enWiki. Has any of you really crtically checked all the given sources and is sure who is right?

Polish-Russian dispute on enWiki is some proof how more numerous and backed by their state group wins their point. Unfortunately, these disputes are on this Wiki countless - and that is why why it's such a mess despite (or maybe because of) so many contributors.

Best regards, :)
aegis maelstrom δ 09:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, mate, we all try to be kinder, although vandalisms, errors and hostile/uneducated/biased/... people are so numerous and we are so few and sometimes we all simply lack patience and energy to do everything fine. That's why also I don't involve too much on enWiki - we have already enough biased users on pl and work to do over there, and countless disputes with some users here (like Australian guy stating he knows history of central Europe better than anyone else, no matter Polish, Czech or Russian and pushing hard his opinions or some Russians rewriting sentences from old soviet propaganda books (in fact there were very few non-propaganda ones) like Great Soviet Encyclopedia).

Add to that bullies, opportunism and double standards of some users (politeness expressed in front of whole community or sysops combined with harsh personal attacks, malicious edits and even attacking other cultures like one of sysops here - guy probably does not have balls to say anything like that in real life as he'd be sued in a minute - I don't want to look for a link). Not to forget anglo-centrism and ignorance and we know why actually experts and not only them often run away from Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's much harder to examine whether an article is true than if a piece of software works.

So, as sour it sounds, keep rockin' :) 'cause there's a lotta work to do! Somebody has to do that and hopefully there will be Wikipedia 1.0+ when someone comes after us and corrects everything. If not, well, sadly we will just enforce some stereotypes, urban legends and unproven facts.

Greets, aegis maelstrom δ 11:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And good luck with your thesis! I have to write one right now as well. :]

Jim Heller

Heah,

This is Jim Heller, the person you blocked for supposedly violating the three-revert rule on the Ron Geaves article. I believe that the violator in that situation was Jossi Fresco not me. Indeed, I believe that Jossi Fresco was vandalizing the article, taking out all the text that I contributed on a new subject within the Geaves article, but that once I began reversing his vandalism he began to accuse me of "reverting". I would like to discuss this with you further. Is this the appropriate place? Thanks--Jim Heller 13:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, rather than wait, here's my complaint:

To whom it may concern,

Hi. My name's Jim Heller and I'm currently and for some time now caught up in a series of edit wars with Jossi Fresco. The background is this. I am a former follower of Prem Rawat, a/k/a Maharaji, a person I believe is a nefarious cult leader. Fresco, on the other hand, is a current follower and, needless to say, of a different mind altogether.

For some years now, ever since the advent of the internet, Rawat and his followers have engaged in a long-standing campaign to whitewash Rawat's past and somehow protect him from the harsh light of history. The latest flashpoint arose just today when I tried to edit a Wikipedia article of another of Rawat's current followers, a religious studies professor in fact, Ron Geaves (who, by the way, just shot to flashpan infamy as the English academic who opined that the July 7th bombers were "demonstrators", not "terrorists".

Please excuse the fact that, to explain the problem in any meaningful way, I have to flesh out the context somewhat. My edit concerned an academic (not Wikipedia) article Geaves had written where, discussing a program Rawat held in 1973, he wrote that: In November 1973, Divine Light Mission had booked the Houston Astrodome, a large sports stadium with a capacity of 90,000. The event had taken on millenial expectations in the U.S. with devotees announcing and advertising Maharaji's appearance at the stadium as a second-coming, complete with angelic and alien visitors. Only 20,000 attended the event and Maharaji did not appear to have any knowledge of his American followers' expectations. He spoke as he usually does at such gatherings with no hint of messianic promises. (My emphasis here and below)

In fact, in a widely-disseminated invitation to that same 1973 program, Maharaji himself not only demonstrated knowledge of the "millenial expectations" but fanned the flames substantially. Thus, he declared the program the "most Holy and significant event in human history" and even hinted that it might have intergalactic significance:

A LETTER FROM GURU MAHARAJ JI

Bonn, Germany

September 31, 1973

Dear premies,

First of all, I would like to tell you about something of great importance to all of us. Because we have realized this beautiful Knowledge which is of great bliss to us all, it is our duty to propagate it to the human race. For it is something they really need.

In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. It is understood by all that the world is passing through a great moment. No one has satisfaction of mind nor can they find the solution to this. The world is looking for the Perfect Master to come and reveal the Perfect Knowledge of God. There is a supreme energy constantly vibrating in everything making it survive and all the Perfect Masters coem to reveal this Knowledge to people. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism.

As you all know Millenium '73 is being prepared for now. This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America.

I think that Millenium '73 is a point where we can really get together and enjoy the bliss bliss with all of our brothers and sisters who are premies; and also tell the world that we have received and realized the permanent service of Truth, Consciousness and Bliss which all the world is looking for in one way or manner.

To do this I really need your help. I really need the help of all the premies in all respects; physically, financially and all other ways to make Millenium '73 come off. This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe.

I hereby invite you to this Divine Festival of Peace, Millenium '73 and request all premies to help me financially, physically and spiritually to make the program manifest for all seekers of Truth.

Isn't it about time you all get together and help me bring peace to this Earth?

Blessings to you all,

[Sant Ji Maharaj]''

It is clear, when you contrast Geaves' claim with the documentary evidence, that Geaves, bless his heart, is playing the role of the typical cult apologist, lying about his leader and blaming the followers, the press, anyone at all, for the inexcusable, laughable excesses of the cult. What's particularly worrying about Geaves, I'm sure you can appreciate, is that, as a religious studies professor, he's imbued with a certain authority that makes him an especially effective, if unscrupulous, propagandist. It's one thing when he makes silly comments about the July 7 bombers being "demonstrators" not terrorists. No one would ever take him seriously on that score. But it's another altogether when he publishes supposedly-scholarly works about his cult leader (without ever disclosing that he's a follower, by the way) which completely distort the historical record.

With these concerns in mind, I wrote the following additional comment for Geaves' Wikipedia article:

Geaves has written a couple of articles about Prem Rawat, his guru, for various scholarly journals without publically disclosing in those pieces that he is a follower of Rawat (a/k/a Maharaji). Critics of Geaves allege that these works are dissembling, revisionist propaganda and far too biased and inaccurate for proper scholarship. For instance, in a 2006 article, Geaves commented on the "Millenium" festival Rawat held in Houston in 1973, noting that "The event had taken on millenial expectations in the U.S. with devotees announcing and advertising Maharaji's appearance at the stadium as a second-coming, complete with angelic and alien visitors. Only 20,000 attended the event and Maharaji did not appear to have any knowledge of his American followers' expectations. He spoke as he usually does at such gatherings with no hint of messianic promises." However, in a letter that Rawat himself wrote inviting followers to the festival, he called it "the most Holy and significant event in human history". And later, "This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe."

Now you may think that this isn't quite NPOV enough. You may think it requires more specific attributions. You may even think it isn't particularly well-written. But these are all matters which can be discussed and worked on in a Wikipedian collaborative spirit. Instead, what happened was Jossi Fresco, a paid web tech for Rawat (Maharaji), who stands guard dog over the Rawat articles for his master, anonymously began deleting my text and inserting, instead, this:

Dr. Geaves has also written a number of papers related to Maharaji and affiliated organizations to combine his first hand knowledge of the subject (Geaves is a student of Maharaji) with his academic training to provide insights into this movement [2]

As indicated on the Talk: Ron Geaves page, eventually Fresco admitted that he was the deleter. We then got into a big tug-o-war wherein I would reinsert my text and warn him to quit reverting and he would then blame me for reverting in contravention of the Wiki excessive reversion rule. At one point he siezed on the fact that I posted without remembering to log in (I'm a bit new at this), accusing me of trying to sneak in via a sockpuppet or whatever you call them. Hardly. I've never denied my identity which has been apparent to Fresco all along. Like I said, he was the one who started the anonymous vandalism of my edit before finally coming out of the shadows.

After all this, though, the nub of the issue is this: who was the original editor here and who was performing the illicit reversions? How can I be fairly accused of too many reversions for simply trying to protect my own original edit against his vandalism? Believe me, Jossi Fresco is the first to complain when the shoe's on the other foot, namely when someone changes some text this way. So how can he have it both ways?

I know that Fresco has wormed his way into some sort of admin position with Wikipedia but that's just a potential embarrassment for this institution. This is just one example but things like this happen all the time with him. That's why the Prem Rawat articles are so terrible, really. They have very little substance, their focus is all off and, frankly, they're just boring, whitewashed advertisements for this cult. And Fresco's largely responsible.

I look forward to your considered reply.

Sincerely,

Jim Heller--Jim Heller 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you tone down your rethoric and your language in particular as you have already been blocked for violating the no personal attacks policy in a recent exchange with me. For your information, no one can "worm his way" into adminship. The community of Wikipedia has a process of nominating editors for the role of sysop that has worked remarkably well so far. If you haveany concerns about my behavior, and as I told you numerous times in the recent weeks, you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 08:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I wrongly accused you of committing all the deletion/reversions/vandalism of my text. It turns out it wasn't just you although why you didn't say so is beyond me. But I will never agree that your work on the Rawat or related articles is done in good faith.--Jim Heller 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Heah, I've replied to you further on my own talk page.--Jim Heller 18:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

It is annoying to block the one page this user specifically signed up for. Especially when it wasn't discussed on the talk page, and there really wasn't any trying to solve the dispute without protecting the page, like you are supposed to. Look at this link about when not to use semi-protection. Though I am not an admin, many others are, and they also have the power to revert and unprotect pages. I am requesting unprotection, on the page, Bernie Sanders. I have already notified another admin, Sceptre. If you would rather not unprotect, please leave your reasons on my talk page.

Thanks!

--Prim a t e #101 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did my research. I knew it was already protected, just wanted to see why :-)

--Prim a t e #101 03:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders

I'm not sure that Straightinfo fully appreciates what NPOV means, as exampled here:

What this comes down to is Bkwillwm feels any comment which might make Sanders "look bad", is POV, even though the intent of the information is to present neutrality by giveng both sides at once. Straightinfo 23:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't about reproducing two opposite pointed views, but instead giving all the pertinant information and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. The user removed the POV flag without any consensus with other users and then dropped a few weasel wordings into the Bernie Sanders article. Advice and guidence would be very appreciated. --sigmafactor 23:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for taking the appropriate actions regarding Rcox1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have no idea what his intentions are, as his edits seem to make the Keith Olbermann biographies more biased. Hopefully, your block will straighten out his 'tude. Thanks again! --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 11:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to adminship

Dude... I think you got called a "waffle iron". Welcome to adminship. The first couple weeks can be stressful; your user page might end up, ahem, thoughtfully rearranged more than you're used to. But it's for a good cause, right? ;) Gimme a holler if you want a second admin opinion about anything, or just wanna say "'sup." Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 23:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. The real fun is when you get hate email from blocked users. Their grasp of the language is...not so good. Let me know if someone needs a larting. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Heah, can you please help me out with the situation at the Armenian Genocide page? Some user is inserting obvious POV and isn't really discussing things that much. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Straightinfo

Straightinfo (talk · contribs) seems to be ban evading with 65.199.23.192 (talk · contribs). --waffle iron ^talk 13:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rcox1963

I'm having problems with this user on the talk pages for Keith Olbermann and Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He's been rude since the start, but now I find out he's one of the people that run [www.olbermannwatch.com Olbermann Watch]. That's not a problem, we all have our biases, but he decided that since he can't call me petty names here, he'd do it on that site. [2] He accuses me of being a sockpuppet of User:D-Day, which I am not.

It's really frustrating and I'm probably going to stay away from the articles for a while. It just makes me feel sick because it's like his harrassment has beat me. --waffle iron ^talk 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why deleted a page?

Hi Heah

Am definitely having fun learning my way around W.! Duh.

Posted the below message for you on the Administrators list?board?thing...:

Having trouble getting in touch because you've disabled newbies from getting in touch from your userpage, so Pls, if this is the wrong place, forgive me :-/ [I now know that this is not the case, coz here I am!]

Noticed that you'd deleted a page (as per the below link: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Vestibulodynia )

Could you please let me know why? Can't find *any* ref to it in deletion logs (looked under both the dates listed in the above link, 9 April & 20 March) so I don't know why!

Thanks v., and pls forgive me for my newbie ineptitude :o)

Lvpsg 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clocks (song) or Clocks (single)

I noticed that you deleted Clocks, which had been listed for a copyright violation on Mar. 28 2006. Note that the Wikipedia article didn't copy the Coldplaying.com article [3]. Rather it's the other way around; Coldplaying.com took the Wikipedia Clocks article, and posted it on their webpage. I actually began Wikipedia's Clocks article back in January 2005 [[4]] and I had to dig up various sources for information, b/c Coldplaying.com didn't have much (if any) details on the song. Since Wikipedia's articles are all within the public domain, other websites are free to copy or reprint our material as they please. Please be more careful with any future admin work; i notice that there's already another complaint about your deletion history. Cheers, --Madchester 06:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Thanks for responding. The thing is this guy doesn't revert everything at once, but does it little by little. Again, as you know the 3RR rule refers to both partial and full reverts. I'm just trying to put a fair presentation down on the page and then this guy comes in a runs wild. Please let me know how you think I should proceed.

With much appreciation,

Jon

CherryPop 03:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)CherryPop[reply]

Bulgarian language

I think the contributions that were reverted were in fact reasonable. FunkyFly 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]